Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 07/14/15 Page 1of10 Page ID #:1

Transcription

1 Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 07/14/15 Page 1of10 Page ID #:1 1 LORETI A E. LYNCH Attorney General 2 VANITA GUPTA 3 Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division 4 STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM, Chief 5 JON M. SEW ARD, Deputy Chief MART A CAMPOS, Trial Attorney 6 Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 7 Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. - NWB 9 Washington, DC Telephone: (202) ; Facsimile: (202) Marta.Campos@usdoj.gov 11 EILEEN M. DECKER 12 United States Attorney 13 LEON W. WEIDMAN Assistant United States Attmney 14 Chief, Civil Division 15 ROBYN-MARIE LYON MONTELEONE (State Bar No ) 16 Assistant United States Attorney Assistant Division Chief, Civil Rights Unit Chief, Civil Division North Los Angeles Street, Suite Los Angeles, California Telephone: (213) ; Facsimile: (213) l 9 Robby.Monteleone@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 22 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CIVIL ACTION NO. CV Plaintiff, 24 COMPLAINT v. 25 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE 26 CORPORATION, 27 Defendant.

2 Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 07/14/15 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:2 1 Plaintiff, United States of America, alleges: 2 I. The United States of America brings this action against American Honda 3 Finance Corporation ("Honda" or "Defendant") for discriminating against thousands of 4 African-American, Hispanic, and Asian and/or Pacific Islander borrowers across the 5 United States who obtained loans from Honda to finance automobiles. The 6 discrimination is caused by Honda's policy and practice that allows dealers to include 7 markups in the interest rates on automobile loans in a hidden manner not based on the 8 b01tower's creditworthiness or other objective criteria related to borrower risk. The 9 United States brings this action to enforce provisions of the Equal Credit Opportunity 10 Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C f, and i_ts implementing regulation, Regulation B, C.F.R. Part Between at least January l, 2011 and July 14, 2015 ("the Relevant Period"), 13 Honda did not provide adequate constraints or monitoring across its portfolio of loans to 14 prev,ent discrimination. Honda knew or had reason to know that its policy and practice 15 of allowing dealers to mark up consumers' interest rates created a substantial risk of 16 discrimination. During this time, Honda did not monitor markup disparities As a result of Honda's dealer markup and compensation policy and practice 18 and its lack of compliance monitoring, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian and/or 19 Pacific Islander borrowers paid higher interest rates for their automobile loans than white 20 borrowers, not based on creditworthiness or other objective criteria related to borrower 21 risk, but because of their race and national origin. Between January 1, 2011 and 22 December 31, 2013, tpe average African-American victim was obligated to pay over 23 $250 more during the term of the loan because of discrimination, the average Hispanic 24 victim was obligated to pay over $200 more during the term of the loan, and the average 25 Asian and/or Pacific Islander victim was obligated to pay over $150 more during the 26 term of the loan because of discrimination. 27 1

3 Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 07/14/15 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #: This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 139 le(h) and U.S.C Venue is proper in this District under U.S.C PARTIES 5. The United States is authorized to initiate a civil action in federal district court whenever a matter is referred to the Attorney General pursuant to 15 U.S.C e(g) and when the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a pattern or practice in violation ofecoa has occurred. 15 U.S.C. 1691e(h). 6. Honda is a captive auto finance company and wholly-owned subsidiary of American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (American Honda Motor). Honda is incorporated in the state of California with its principal place of business in T01Tance, California. As of December 31, 2014, Honda had over $65 billion in total assets. 7. As of the first quarter of2015, Honda was the fourth largest captive auto finance company in the United States. Honda held a 2.10 percent share of the overall auto loan market based on originations, making it the ninth largest auto lender overall. There are over 1,000 Honda dealers in the United States. 8. Honda finances or purchases both subvented and non-subvented auto loans. 17 -Subvented auto Loans are loans for which an auto manufacturer, such as American 18 Honda Motor, reduces the price of the loan through a subsidy, reduced interest rate, or 19 other means. During the Relevant Period, approximately 65o/o of Honda's auto loans 20 were subvented Automobile dealers submit applications to Honda on behalf of consumers. 22 To determine whether it will fund a loan, and on what terms, Honda conducts an 23 underwriting process on each loan application submitted by its dealers on behalf of a 24 consumer. For those applications that Honda approves, Honda sets a specified "buy 25 rate.,, Honda determines the buy rate using a proprietary underwriting and pricing model 26 that takes into account individual borrowers' creditworthiness and other objective 27 criteria related to b01tower risk. Honda then communicates that buy rate to the dealer 2

4 Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 07/14/15 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:4 1 that submitted the application to Honda. Honda's buy rate reflects the minimum interest 2 rate, absent additional discounts or reductions, at which Honda will finance or purchase a 3 retail installment contract from a dealer With respect to non-subvented retail installment contracts, Honda maintains 5 a specific policy and practice that provides dealers discretion to mark up a consumer's 6 interest rate above Honda's established risk-based buy rate. The difference between the 7 buy rate and the consumer's interest rate on the retail installment contract (contract rate) 8 is known as the "dealer markup." Honda compensates dealers from the increased 9 interest revenue to be derived from the dealer markup. Honda does not allow dealers to 10 mark up subvented retail installment contracts During the Relevant Period, Honda limited the dealer markup to 225 basis 12 points for contracts with terms of sixty (60) monthly payments or less, and to 200 basis 13 points for contracts with terms of greater than sixty (60} monthly payments Honda regularly participates in the decision to extend credit by taking 15 responsibility for underwriting, setting the terms of credit by establishing the risk-based 16 buy rate, and communicating those terms to automobile dealers. Honda influences the 17 credit decision by indicating to automobile dealers whether or not Honda will purchase 18 retail installment contracts on the terms specified by Honda Honda's agreements with automobile dealers require that all loan 20 applications they submit to Honda must comply with the policies, conditions, and 21 requirements that Honda sets for dealers Honda is a creditor within the meaning ofecoa, 15 U.S.C. 169la(e), 23 and Regulation B, 12 C.F.R (1). 24 INVESTIGATION On April 25, 2013, the United States and the Consumer Financial Protection 26 Bureau (CFPB) initiated a joint investigation under ECOA of Honda's pricing of 27 automobile loans or retail installment contracts. 3

5 Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 07/14/15 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #: On November 25, 2014, the CFPB determined it had reason to believe that 2 Honda had engaged in a pattern and practice of lending discrimination on the basis of 1 3 race and national origin in violation ofecoa, 15 U.S.C. 1691(a)(l). The CFPB 4 referred Honda to the United States Department of Justice pursuant to ECOA, 15 U.S.C le(g), and the December 6, 2012 Memorandum of Understanding between the 6 United States Department of Justice and the CFPB The United States and the CFPB analyzed Honda's lending policies, 8 procedures, and internal controls, including Honda's dealer markup and compensation 9 policy and practice between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013 ("the time period 10 covered by the analyses"). The United States and the CFPB also performed an analysis 11 of Honda's loan-level data on the automobile Joans Honda funded during the time period 12 covered by the analyses to test for lending discrimination. 13 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS The United States and the CFPB analyzed the dealer markup of the non- 15 subvented retail installment contracts that Honda purchased between January 1, and December 31, During the time period covered by the analyses, Honda 17 purchased hundreds of thousands of non-subvented retail installment contracts, and the J 8 United States and the CFPB determined that thousands of retail installment contracts that 19 Honda purchased had African-American, Hispanic, or Asian and/or Pacific Islander 20 borrowers The retail installment contracts analyzed by the United States and the CFPB 22 did not contain infonnation on the race or national origin of borrowers. To evaluate any 23 differences in dealer markup> the United States and the CFPB assigned race and national 24 origin probabilities to applicants. The United States and the CFPB employed a proxy 25 methodology that combines geography-based and name-based probabilities, based on 26 public data published by the United States Census Bureau, to form a joint probability 27 using the Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding (BISG) method. The joint race and 4

6 Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 07/14/15 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:6 national origin probabilities obtained through the BISG method were then used directly 2 in the United States's and the CFPB's models to estimate any disparities in dealer 3 markup on the basis of race o r national origin The United States's and the CFPB's markup analyses focused on the 5 interest rate difference between each borrower's contract rate and each bouower's buy 6 rate set by Honda. Honda considers individual borrowers' creditworthiness and other 7 objective criteria related to borrower risk in setting the buy rate as explained in 8 Paragraph l 0. The dealer markups charged by Honda to consumers are based on dealer 9 discretion and are separate from, and not controlled by, the adjustments for l 0 creditworthiness and other objective criteria related to borrower risk that are already 1 l reflected in the buy rate. Honda's markup policy did not include consideration of these 12 factors. Because the analysis focused on only the difference between each borrower's 13 contract rate and buy rate, it did not make additional adjustments for creditworthiness or 14 other objective criteria related to borrower risk During the time period covered by the analyses, on average, African- 16 American borrowers were charged approximately thirty-six (36) basis points more in 17 dealer markup than similarly-situated non-hispanic whites for non-subvented retail 18 installment contracts. These disparities are statistically significant, and these differences 19 are based on race and not based on creditworthiness or other obj~ctive criteria related to 20 borrower risk. These disparities mean that thousands of African-American borrowers 21 paid higher markups than the average non-hispanic white markup and were obligated to 22 pay, on average, over $250 more each in interest than similarly-situated non-hispanic 23 white borrowers assuming they held their loans for the full term of the contract During the time period covered by the analyses, on average, Hispanic 25 borrowers were charged approximately twenty-eight () basis points more in dealer 26 markup than similarly-situated non-hispanic whites for non-subvented retail installment 27 contracts. These disparities are statistically significant, and these differences are based 5

7 Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 07/14/15 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:7 on national origin and not based on creditwo1thiness or other objective criteria related to 2 borrower risk. These disparities mean that thousands of Hispanic borrowers paid higher 3 markups than the average non-hispanic white markup and were obligated to pay, on 4 average, approximately $200 more each in interest than similarly-situated non-hispanic 5 white borrowers assuming they held their loans for the full term of the contract During the time period covered by the analyses, on average, Asian and/or 7 Pacific Islander borrowers were charged approximately twenty-five (25) basis points 8 more in dealer markup than similarly-situated non-hispanic whites for non-subvented 9 retail installment contracts. These disparities are statistically significant, and these 10 differences are based Ori race and/or national origin and not based on credjtworthiness or 11 other objective criteria related to borrower risk. These disparities mean that thousands of 12 Asian and/or Pacific Islander borrowers paid higher markups than the average non- 13 Hispanic white markup and were obligated to pay, on average, over $150 more each in 14 interest than similarly-situated non-hispanic white borrowers.assuming they held their 15 loans for the full term of the contract The higher markups that Honda charged to African-American, Hispanic, 17 and Asian and/or Pacific Islander borrowers are a result of Honda's policy and practice 18 of allowing dealers to mark up a consumer's interest rate above Honda's established buy 19 rate and then compensating dealers from that increased interest revenue Honda's policy and practice of allowing dealers to mark up a consumer,s 21 interest rate above Honda's established buy rate and then compensating dealers from that 22 increased interest revenue continued throughout the entire Relevant Period During the Relevant Period, Honda has not required dealers to document 24 reasons for charging markups, has not monitored whether discrimination occurred 25 across its portfolio of loans through charging markups, and has not at all times provided 26 detailed fair lending training to its dealers. 27 6

8 Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 07/14/15 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:8 I 27. Honda's policy and practice of allowing dealers to mark up a consumer's 2 contract rate above Honda's established buy rate and then compensating dealers from 3 that increased interest revenue without adequate controls and monitoring is not justified 4 by legjtimate business need that cannot reasonably be achieved as well by means that 5 are less disparate in their impact on African-American, Hispanic, and Asian and/or 6 Pacific Islander borrowers. This policy and practice has been in effect during the 7 Relevant Period. 8. Honda knew or had reason to lmow that its policy and practice of allowing 9 dealers to mark up consumers' interest rates created a substantial risk of discrimination. 10 EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT VIOLATIONS Honda's policies and practices as alleged herein, coupled with the 12 disparities described above, constitute discrimination against applicants with respect to 13 credit transactions on the basis of race and national origin in violation of the Equal 14 Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. 169l(a)(l) and Regulation B, 12 C.F.R (a), (a), (b)(9) Honda's policies and practices, as alleged herein, constitute a pattern or 17 practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights secured by the Equal Credit 18 Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C [ and Regulation B, 12 C.F.R During the time period covered by the analyses, Honda has charged 21 minority borrowers nationwide discriminatory interest charges for automobile loans as a 22 result of its pattern or practice of discrimination and denial of rights as alleged herein. 23 There is reason to believe that these discriminatory interest charges continued 24 throughout the Relevant Period. In addition to higher direct economic costs, some of 25 the victims of discrimination suffered additional consequential economic damages 26 resulting from having an excessively costly loan, including possible increased risk of 27 credit problems, default, and repossession, and other damages, including emotional 7

9 Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 07/14/15 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:9 1 distress. They are aggrieved applicants as defined in the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 2 15 U.S.C. 1691e, and have suffered injury and damages as a result of Honda's 3 conduct Honda's policies and practices, as alleged herein, were intentional, willful, 5 or implemented with reckless disregard for the rights of African-American; Hispanic, 6 and Asian and/or Pacific Islander borrowers ECOA empowers this CouJ1 to grant such relief as may be appropriate, 8 including actual and punitive damages and injunctive relief. 15 U.S.C. 1691e(h). 9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF I 0 WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court enter an ORDER that: l l ( 1) Declares that the policies and practices of the Defendant constitute 12 violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C lf; 13 (2) Enjoins the Defendant and its agents, employees, and successors, and all 14 other persons in active concert or participation with it, from: 15 a) Discriminating on the basis of race or national origin against any 16 person with respect to any aspect of their credit transactions; 17 b) Failing or refusing to take such affinnative steps as may be necessary 18 to restore, as nearly as practicable, the victims of the Defendant's unlawful conduct to 19 the position they would have been in but for the discriminatory conduct; and c) Failing or refusing to talce such affirmative steps as may be necessary to prevent the recurrence of any such discriminatory conduct in the future; to eliminate, to the extent practicable, the effect of Honda's unlawful practices; and to implement - policies and procedures to ensure that all borrowers have an equal opportunity to seek and obtain loans on a non-discriminatory basis and with nonadiscriminatory terms and conditions; and (3) Awards equitable relief and monetary damages to all the victims of the Defendant's discriminatory policies and practices for the injuries caused by the 8

10 Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 07/14/15 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #:10 1 Defendant, in.eluding direct economic costs, consequential damages, and other damages, 2 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 169le(h). 3 The United States pray for such additional relief as the interests of justice may 7 8 ' I United States Attorney 9 Central District of California 10 LEON W. WEIDM Assistant Unite u,...,.,~~ /"\ 11 Chief, Civiw~ootlf' l2 1-4 Y.Lr'l..J.~.J_j 13 Assistant nited tates Attorney Assistant Division Chief l4 Civil Rights Unit Chief, Civil Division 15 Central District of California 312 North Spring Street 16 Suite 1200 Los Angeles,{ California 17 Tel.: (213) Fax: (213) robby.monteleone@usdoj.gov LOREITAE. LYNCH A~ - ~ Pi:i~ci_p~ l Dep~ty ~ssjstant Attorney General C1v1l Rights D1v1s1on Chief Civil Rights Division Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Trial Attomex United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. - NWB Washington DC Tel.: (202) Fax: (202) marta.campos@usdoj.gov 9 -- I